I just finished a column on torture (will be up tomorrow). But Ramesh’s post has been bothering me too (Andy McCarthy responds to it here).

Ramesh asks if the ticking time bomb blows up “any categorical moral prohibition? If we’re talking about saving a city, for example, would it be permissible to torture the terrorist’s innocent elderly mother or infant child to get him to talk?” Andy basically makes the point I was going to make insofar as the moral categories Ramesh sees between a terrorist and his innocent mother or daughter are very real and Ramesh shouldn’t assume that adherents of the ticking bomb scenario automatically advocate the torture of anyone under such a threat, merely because they advocate the torture of someone.

Indeed, it becomes difficult to come up with a scenario where the torture of an innocent might be required. An innocent person with knowledge of where the bomb is would surely volunteer it without coercion. And an innocent person who refuses to divulge the information is almost by definition no longer an innocent but an accomplice. Of course, one can come up with Hollywoodish scenarios where innocents are blackmailed into silence for noble reasons (a kidnapped child or some such). But if Ramesh already thinks the ticking bomb is a red herring, it seems silly to gild the herring even more.

I haven’t worked out all the answers for myself, but it seems to me that a great clarifier in this area is to substitute “torture” with “deadly force.” Surely, there’s nothing wrong with shooting a terrorist in the head before he can push the button that blows up New York. Surely, there’s everything wrong with shooting an innocent person for no reason whatsoever. The only way it’s different for torture is if you believe torture is worse than killing. We should greet assertions along these lines cautiously. The ten commandments don’t say “thou shalt not torture.” That doesn’t mean we get a free pass on torture, but it seems odd to think that murder is a lesser sin than torture and yet torture gets left off the list of the major dos and don’ts.

Killing solely for fun, profit, revenge etc is merely murder and is already quite illegal. Torturing for any of these reasons is depraved assault and is also quite illegal. In situations where the lives of innocents aren’t at stake, killing even those who deserve death is illegal without due process of some kind. The only place where killing is permitted without due process is in situations of self-defense or the defense of others. Is it really so absurd to think of torture in the same light?

Obviously, war streamlines the ease with which the state can kill, but there are still rules and our soldiers should — and overwhelmingly do — obey them. And rules there should be.