Ultimately, the answer to such questions are deeply personal. Some may believe the ends never justify "wrong" means. Other may believe that the "lesser evil" justification applies whenever they personally believe the "lesser evil" is slightly less wrong than the potential alternative. Others may believe the "lesser evil" argument can only be legitmately invoked when there is a consensus the lesser evil is absolutely necessary to prevent a far greater and certain to result wrong.

What is wrong with people that now suddenly terrorism seems to call for a retreat from long established canons of moral behaviour? Is anyone on this blog seriously trying to argue that the challenges America now faces  to its existence are greater than those in the late 18th c when the country was founded? I know that clash of civilization rhetoric is faddishly popular now, but cooler heads ought to see through such patent nonsense. Does the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment mean anything? Do limits on executive power mean anything? Dershowitz's arguments are neither pragmatic nor convincing, but represent a colossal failure of the moral imagination.

He says he is morally against torture.  However, he favors establishing written rules and procedures that will permit torture.  How can you be morally against torture if you favor rules that will permit torture?

Dershowitz uses fallacious reasoning when he says "There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works - it only produces false information."  Most opponents of torture wil readily concede that torture can produce information that is true.  The problem is that torture can also equally produce information that is false.  This is because under torture a person will often say what the torturer wants to hear which is why so many false confessions have been obtained through torture.  At best, information obtained under torture is unreliable.

Admirably, Dershowitz does not favor "routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib."  I agree with Dershowitz that torture should not be used to "secure confessions of past crimes."  Unfortunately, for Dershowitz, this is exactly how the Bush administration has used torture.  According to Dershowitz the only time that torture can be used is to "obtain (in) real time, actionable intelligence deemed necessary to prevent an act of mass casualty terrorism."  Can anyone provide me with a single documented example where the Bush administration use of torture has obtained actionable intelligence that has prevented mass casualty terrorism?  I can't think of any and Dershowitz can't either because he doesn't provide any examples of the Bush administration doing this.  

It's no more mister nice guy time. ;-)

Let's go with the best excuse so far expounded on these learned pages or anywhere else, for that matter, for torturing people. Forget about the fact that it's fun and show 'em who's boss.

The ultimate irrefutable justification for torture is now:

torture frequently results in obtaining information to use

It just doesn't get any better that this:

torture frequently results in obtaining information to use

Heh. PowerBlind and Hinderaker ain't got nuthin' on this place.

Gonzales and Yoo and Mukasey and Bush?? Amateurs all!

And of course "decorum" and "civility" are always welcome too, in case anyone "failed to understand".

And the "information" ""enhanced interrogation techniques" produces is not at all similar to what the "interrogators" wanted the "interrogatees" to say. No, no. It's real, vettable "actionable intelligence". We'll even have a list of desirerd answers to "vett" this "actionable intelligence" against.

It's wingnut heaven.

It just wouldn't do to just write down the desired answers and use them as "information to use".

There would be no screams, no begging for mercy, no willingness to say anything at all to make the pain and the terror stop.

And besides... without "enhancement" there would be no fun, and no orgasms.

I'm sold. I have a few questions for the neocons.

I'm going to make a list of the the desired answers.

It's well known that the prohibition on torture is an international peremptory norm like the prohibition on slavery, genocide, or wars of aggression.

"The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated in Prosecutor v. Furundžija that there is a jus cogens for the prohibition against torture.[10] It also stated that every State is entitled "to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction."[11] Therefore, there is universal jurisdiction over torture. The rationing for this is that "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."

This is a much stronger position than AD's "normative" position would suggest. AD mistakes normative for normal early in his argument, the former is a strong ethical position, the latter is a utilitarian position with a serious defect.

The defect is that AD's contrived hypothetical silently introduces a class of people to whom human rights ought not apply--the evil. Only in cases of serious evil-doing would AD support torture. Conveniently, terrorists define evil for AD. That his hypothetical is infected with Bush-style rhetoric ought to give a serious person pause, but you can have it your way and say it's just a mean liberal with a "sez-me" problem.

Another problem with AD's formulation is that one's enemies can determine you to be evil as well, with to them equal legitimacy. If you're a Palestinian, then the evil is Israeli occupation and oppression: if you're an Israeli, the evil is the Palestinian bomber. Surely such an impasse is beyond futile?

 By allowing for the torture of evil-doers, AD does away with history, dialogue, and a strong opposition to torture. His decontextualized example hits the right emotional note, but is ethically tone deaf. The slippage between normal and normative allows him to promote his ethical confusion, which serves no one in the long run.

You might want to look at this from the Columbia Law Review:
In recently published memoranda, Justice Department lawyers have suggested that it is not in all circumstances wrong or unlawful to inflict pain in the course of interrogating terrorist suspects. Also, at least one legal scholar has suggested that the United States might institute a system of judicial torture warrants, to permit coercive interrogation in cases where it might yield information that will save lives. The shocking nature of these suggestions forces us to think afresh about the legal prohibition on torture. This Article argues that the prohibition on torture is not just one rule among others, but a legal archetype--a provision which is emblematic of our larger commitment to non-brutality in the legal system. Characterizing it as an archetype affects how we think about the implications of authorizing torture (or interrogation methods that come close to torture). It affects how we think about issues of definition in regard to torture. And it affects how we think about the absolute character of the legal and moral prohibitions on torture. On this basis, the Article concludes not only that the absolute prohibition on torture should remain in force, but also that any attempt to loosen it (either explicitly or by narrowing the definition of "torture") would deal a traumatic blow to our legal system and affect our ability to sustain the law's commitment to human dignity and nonbrutality even in areas where torture as such is not involved.

Torture is a fundamental assault on human dignity, both of the victim and the victimizer. Did you respond to this? NO, you didn't.

How do you contain torture, once it's been put on the table? Did you respond to this? No, you didn't.

What of your opponents' use of torture being enabled by your embrace of torture? Again, no response.

Stop prattling about how everyone else isn't arguing intelligently and try to make an actual case for your own position that's persausive.

 I basically just use them as foils to illustrate for others the problem of allowing irrational passion to destroy the capacity to reason.

And I'm not talking about Dershowitz' views on torture itself.  People can disagree with Dershowitz and think he is stupid, blind, and immoral, but at least he is being intellectually honest and writing down what he feels and thinks.  I'm talking more about how we on the left have swung from supporting his defenses to vilifying the guy.

On liberal blog after liberal blog it becomes clear that Dershowitz is a scum that seeks only to enrichen himself and has always been that way.  Well known liberal bloggers or almost equally well known commenters point out how craven and self-enriching is defense of OJ was.  And how his defense of Von Bulow was not about how everyone deserves a defense or about how defending the rich allows him to defend the poor, but was only about making Dershowitz well known.

But, what really annoys me, is not just how we on the left can decide who does and does not deserve a good defense, but also who does and does not deserve free speech.

I've been reading Wendy Kaminer, of the ACLU, as she writes how the ACLU is becoming politically correct in who they defend.   And following the activities of an organization she takes part in known as FIRE.  Recently FIRE took the University of Delaware to task for their implementation of their diversity program, and I think they had excellent reasons for doing so.  According to Technorati, FIRE's activities were covered by about 80 right wing blogs (including Hot Air) and by not a single major left wing blog.  (Only covered by one left wing blog which criticized FIRE, IIRC.)  Gag!  We just gave up the First Amendment to the Right Wing!  And we gave them an excellent stick to pummel us with.

I think we're about to do it again in the UK Libel case against Rachel Ehrenfeld.  Technorati is crap, but near as I can tell, this case, which pits English Libel law vs. the US First Amendment regarding an account published in the US being fought in England has been discussed on all sorts of conservative blogs, and nowhere in the liberal blogosphere.

Difficulty: Rachel Ehrenfeld has some association with the American Enterprise Institute and support from the NRO, HotAir, and PJM.

Will Ehrenfeld's conservative ties in the US prevent us on the left from speaking out in defense of her?

Is the friend of our "enemies" our enemy?

Recognition and Defense of our Civil Liberties should not be treated in this manner.

And we do see on blog after blog (Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias) that torture just does not work, which has raised the question of what these bloggers would say, if torture did in fact work.

I think Alexadrovna is absolutely wrong to claim the moral position must somehow be to not mention that torture could conceivably work.

Klein, Yglesias (and I) are all Jews.  I think the strongest position (that no one is taking?) is that even if torture does work, we don't torture.  Almost all of these bloggers have said in the past that in the improbably ticking nuclear bomb case, yes, we would torture and then expect the President to issue a pardon and then gone on to say how improbable that is to occur and how we should not base our day to day policy on the improbably event.

Near as I can see, Dershowitz is being intellectually honest and saying, we're torturing in the day to day (as at Gitmo), so let's get some court oversight.

I think the weak position is to construe a discussion of torture's efficacy as an endorsement of torture and thus say this is an opinion we must not discuss.

  Torture is wrong. Torture frequently works for its intended purpose.

  This is no different than stating:

 Stealing is wrong. Stealing frequently works for its intended purpose.

  However, despite stealing being wrong, is it always more wrong than not stealing? Would you steal vital medicine to save your child's life if you had no other way of obtaining it? Is there any room for reasonable disagreement about that?

  Is an analogous argument about torture not permissible? Is it helpful to assert such things cannot even be discussed?

  If you believe  torture under any circumstances for any reason is wrong then you should be able to make the case with sensible arguments. Saying silly things such as personal views are not personal or that there can never be a difficult call where torture is one of the possible options is not sensible argument. It's  simple-minded "sez me" shouting.

  One can acknowledge both the utility of torture as a means of obtaining information and admit that at times the information so obtained  might be used to prevent some terrible outcome without surrendering the opposition to torture. It's feebly attempting to deny those realities in order to support opposition to torture  that is both dishonest and counter-productive.

  It's also not a matter of "defining" torture. One can agree that a method of obtaining information is "torture" but still make arguments for its employment in certain cases.

  I'll make it easy for you. finish this thought:

  Stating that actions in abrogation of generally international  accepted norms of conduct are prohibted is demonstrably ineffectual in the real world. All the treaties and conventions in history have not and never will prevent people and governments from doing bad things that are generally accepted as prohibited without exception.

  More simply, you fail to recognize that situations can arise where one prohibited act might be the only means to prevent another prohibited act. As we are discussing "torture" and "terrorism" the failure to acknowledge that is strange.

   Someone or some body will always have to decide when prevention of one wrong requires employment of another wrong and let's facr it "international law" that states both therrorism and torture are always prohibited assists little in that decision-,aking process.