Torture

I keep forgetting that I have my own blog where I can actually write about things that cross my mind with the hope of someone reading it.

There has been alot about torture in the news, and two things have crossed my mind.
First, on one side, people are supportive of torture, the more sane of these because they believe that anything to save American lives is acceptable. Their scenerio is: If someone knows where a bomb is that will kill thousands, would you use torture to save lives?

I notice a void on the anti-torture side. On the Sunday shows last week, and in various blogs or editorials, I keep hearing that torture undermines the US's "Moral legitimacy" ot that it endangers US troops, or weakens our position in the world.
What I don't seem to hear is an objection that merely states that torture is wrong. In other words, the thrust of the anti-torture opinions I'm hearing is that it makes us look bad.
But why should anyone get behind this opinion? Who cares if we look bad? I understand that no politician wants to come across as weak by putting morality before safety. The idea of "moral high ground" still implies a concern for the US's ability to fight the war on terror, but it doesn't make a case against torture unless you can illustrate the value of moral high ground. If the US is an 800 pound gorilla, what difference does it make (Where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Anywhere it wants)

The other argument against torture is that it doesn't work. The premise is that torture can be used to force a confession, but not to gain information because the victim will say what ever has to be said in order for the torture to stop. This argument also stops short of saying torture is morally wrong. It implys the person making it is primarily concerned with national security, and isn't opposed to hurting an enemy, but is opposed to ceeding moral high ground where it is unnecessary.

But I think this arguement is a red herring because I think it doesn't accurately assess the full methodology of torture. I also think that the proponents of torture are powerless to effectively refute this argument because of the implications of the truth.

I don't think information is ascertained by merely torturing one person. The idea of one person who knows where the bomb is is a phony scenerio. I believe it is effective when you torture hundreds of people. I believe this is a game of statistics.
If you torture 100s of people, and 80 give you different answers but 20 give a similar answer, and you ask questions you already know to be true or false, to test the persons's general honesty, then torture can lead to information. It's also probably checked against information gained from friendly informers. And, information from allys might come from questionable methods. But even then' it's probably not 100% reliable. So to employ torture is a large undertaking that involves subjecting probably thousands of people!

But I notice that this has never been suggested as a refutation to those who say torture doesn't work. Why? because it is far more reprehensible than torturing a few people. But if torture is being used, and it's working, then I think this aggregate approach has to be the method.

And, if this is true, the missing morality argument looms much larger - because out of those thousands of torture victims, many are likely innocent as well. So I think the entire debate is disingenuious. If torture works, but in order to work it if far more widespread than assumed, where do we stand? It's really a Us against Them argument more than the utilitarian suggestion of one victim to save the lives of many. And I don't really believe that when the truth is all told that there is anyone is sincerely for Them over Us.
But I find it interesting to watch an issue debated like this - passionately and partisanly, but with the truth hiding in the background.